Re: election results
The NDP are far from the ideal party of the left, but I do understand they work within certain constraints, and they are far better than the alternative. So, it is still nice to see then pull out a win in my beloved home province. Troy paul phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't give the actual results. Here they are from the Globe and Mail which headlined its article something like "NDP squeeze by in Saskatchewan" If Bush had anything like this support ...Paul PhillipsEconomics,University of Manitoba(BA, MA, University of Saskatchewan!) Party Votes % of vote Leading Elected Total New Democratic Party (Saskatchewan) 189742 44.6% 0 30 30 Saskatchewan Party 167348 39.3% 0 28 28 Saskatchewan Liberal Association 60256 14.2% 0 0 0 Western Independence Party 2781 0.7% 0 0 0 New Green Alliance 2504 0.6% 0 0 0 Independent (Saskatchewan) 1988 0.5% 0 0 0 Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan 666 0.2% 0 0 Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
election results
I didn't give the actual results. Here they are from the Globe and Mail which headlined its article something like "NDP squeeze by in Saskatchewan" If Bush had anything like this support ... Paul Phillips Economics, University of Manitoba (BA, MA, University of Saskatchewan!) Party Votes % of vote Leading Elected Total New Democratic Party (Saskatchewan) 189742 44.6% 0 30 30 Saskatchewan Party 167348 39.3% 0 28 28 Saskatchewan Liberal Association 60256 14.2% 0 0 0 Western Independence Party 2781 0.7% 0 0 0 New Green Alliance 2504 0.6% 0 0 0 Independent (Saskatchewan) 1988 0.5% 0 0 0 Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan 666 0.2% 0 0
Re: Re: Germany: Election results
I suspect that the US government demanded the head of the German justice minister on a plate. Bush refused to take a telephone call from Schroeder, and extraordinarily, on the very day of voting, the justice minister was forced to indicate that she would probably be resigning, for making a theoretical reference to Hitler. I think this is ominous for the degree of internal pressure in all countries to sign up to US military hegemony. Chris Burford London At 23/09/02 01:38 -0400, you wrote: Schroeder, whose outspoken defiance against war with Iraq was credited with giving him a late-push in the tight campaign, said he won't back down. He has insisted he would not commit troops for a war even if the United Nations ( news - web sites) backs military action. (do they usually send troops? is this an issue really?) Washington with a conciliatory letter to Bush. Washington reacted coolly - indicating to analysts that a Schroeder team will have to work hard to repair the traditionally strong bond. (oh please)
Germany: Election results
Are there any European friends here to comment on this? Brits don't count, Australians are OK. Sabri + Schroeder's Party Wins 2nd Term Sun Sep 22,10:26 PM ET By TONY CZUCZKA, Associated Press Writer BERLIN (AP) - Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats won one of Germany's closest postwar election Sunday, after a campaign that focused on fears of a war with Iraq and unleashed anti-American rhetoric. With 99.7 percent of the vote counted, a jubilant Schroeder appeared arm-in-arm with Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of the Greens party, the partner in his governing coalition, before cheering supporters at Social Democratic Party headquarters. We have hard times in front of us and we're going to make it together, Schroeder shouted above the din. Official results showed the Social Democrats and Greens combined won 47.1 percent of the vote to continue their coalition for another four years. The conservative challengers led by Bavarian governor Edmund Stoiber, together with the Free Democrats, had 45.9 percent. Absentee ballots were already counted. The Social Democrats and environmentalist Greens won 305 seats in the new parliament of 601 seats, compared to 294 for the conservative challengers led by Bavarian governor Edmund Stoiber, according to projections by ARD public television. In Germany's closest race, a Social Democrat-led government won a 10-seat majority in parliament in 1976 over the Christian Democrats. Stoiber stopped short of conceding in a speech to rowdy supporters in Munich, but predicted that Schroeder's majority would be too slim to form a lasting coalition. Should the result not allow us to form a government, then I predict before you that this Schroeder government will rule for only a very short time, he said. Stoiber said Schroeder will have to repair relations with Washington, damaged by a new German assertiveness that emerged over American determination to oust Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites). Schroeder, whose outspoken defiance against war with Iraq was credited with giving him a late-push in the tight campaign, said he won't back down. He has insisted he would not commit troops for a war even if the United Nations ( news - web sites) backs military action. While Schroeder's anti-war stand resonated with German voters, the rhetoric reached a damaging peak in the final days of his campaign when Justice Minister Herta Daeuberl-Gmelin was reported to have compared President Bush ( news - web sites) to Hitler for threatening war to distract from domestic problems. She denied saying it. The Social Democrats already have made clear she would not have a post if they are re-elected, however Schroeder sought to appease Washington with a conciliatory letter to Bush. Washington reacted coolly indicating to analysts that a Schroeder team will have to work hard to repair the traditionally strong bond. It seems to me that for the relationship and the Iraq issue itself there's no doubt that Schroeder was trying to tap radical pacifist and anti-American sentiment in the population and preliminarily it doesn't seem to have hurt him. And it may have even helped him, said Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute think tank in Berlin. Speaking on CNN Sunday, Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the core relationship between the Republic of Germany and the United States is solid. What you had is Schroeder doing what a lot of politicians do, trying to get out his base. Biden, D-Del., said the relationship between the two countries can be repaired. Stoiber, who used the ruckus over Iraq as ammunition, again accused the chancellor of whipping up emotions against the United States for electoral gain. Stoiber, like the chancellor, opposes unilateral U.S. action, but he insists Germany must be ready to support any U.N.-backed action against Saddam though not with front-line troops. Greens were elated by a trend showing the strongest showing in their 22-year history. Leader Rezzo Schlauch said his party got momentum from the Iraq debate and the popularity of Fischer. We are so happy ... There was the issue of war and peace, and we have a highly competent foreign minister. It was a combination of the issues and the people in charge, Schlauch said. Some 80 percent of Germany's 61 million voters turned out Sunday casting two votes, one for a local candidate and one for a party. The party vote is critical because it determines the percentage of seats each party wins in the Bundestag, or parliament, chosen from a list of candidates it has submitted. Parliament is being downsized to a minimum 598 seats, however the complex voting system allows for seats to be added if a party wins more direct seats in a state than it is entitled under the distribution of seats based on the second vote. Even with 298 of 299 precincts reporting, the total number of seats and their distribution won't be clear until the final results are in. The
Re: Germany: Election results
Schroeder, whose outspoken defiance against war with Iraq was credited with giving him a late-push in the tight campaign, said he won't back down. He has insisted he would not commit troops for a war even if the United Nations ( news - web sites) backs military action. (do they usually send troops? is this an issue really?) Washington with a conciliatory letter to Bush. Washington reacted coolly - indicating to analysts that a Schroeder team will have to work hard to repair the traditionally strong bond. (oh please)
Canadian Election Results..
Here are the results of the Canadian Federal election yesterday: Liberals 173 Alliance 66 Bloc Quebecois 37 Conservatives 12 New Democratic Party 13. The Liberals gained 18 seats, the Alliance 8. The Bloc have 7 fewer seats. The Conservatives have almost half as many as before, and the NDP has six less seats. The voter turnout was 63%...low for Canada. THe right-wing Alliance captured a strong protest vote in the West but captured ony two seats east of Manitoba. All parties retained party status by electing at least 12. The Bloc runs only in Quebec. The Liberals gained quite a few seats there. Cheers, Ken Hanly.
Re: Canadian Election Results..
Without implying any crass parliamentarism or tailism behind any political party, what is good and what is problematic about these results? (I mean in terms of things like shifting the terrain of struggle onto more progressive issues, making it easier for the majority of working people to struggle for control of their economic and political lives, including the safety of the environment.) Chris Burford London At 16:52 28/11/00 -0600, you wrote: Here are the results of the Canadian Federal election yesterday: Liberals 173 Alliance 66 Bloc Quebecois 37 Conservatives 12 New Democratic Party 13. The Liberals gained 18 seats, the Alliance 8. The Bloc have 7 fewer seats. The Conservatives have almost half as many as before, and the NDP has six less seats. The voter turnout was 63%...low for Canada. THe right-wing Alliance captured a strong protest vote in the West but captured ony two seats east of Manitoba. All parties retained party status by electing at least 12. The Bloc runs only in Quebec. The Liberals gained quite a few seats there. Cheers, Ken Hanly.
Re: Re: Canadian Election Results..
What is good is that the Alliance did not get in. They are quite right wing. Some of their candidates were racist. They are terrible on aboriginal issues. They want a two tier health system though they claim otherwise. They are right-wing populist..They are against the Liberals farly stringent gun control legislation and in the west this is a huge issue.. but even more important western farmers do not think LIberals pay attention to them. The split between east and west in the country will be widened somewhat. BUt Liberals do have members in every province. In Quebec the Bloc lost many seats. This does not bode well for the separatist cause. So depending on how you look at it .Quebec will not gain its independence or Quebec will not split Canada. The Liberal rhetoric tends to be at odds with what they do. They are pro-globalisation neo-liberals and have slashed funds from social programs even though some has been put back so that they represent themselves as saviours of our health care system when they ruined it in the first place. The most progressive part of this election is that it has kept even more reactionary forces at bay.. The one supposedly left party the NDP has a leader attracted to the third way. FOrtunately she did not stress this in her campaign. I thought she was reasonably good but many of my friends think she is not a good campaigner... CHeers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 6:14 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5069] Re: Canadian Election Results.. Without implying any crass parliamentarism or tailism behind any political party, what is good and what is problematic about these results? (I mean in terms of things like shifting the terrain of struggle onto more progressive issues, making it easier for the majority of working people to struggle for control of their economic and political lives, including the safety of the environment.) Chris Burford London At 16:52 28/11/00 -0600, you wrote: Here are the results of the Canadian Federal election yesterday: Liberals 173 Alliance 66 Bloc Quebecois 37 Conservatives 12 New Democratic Party 13. The Liberals gained 18 seats, the Alliance 8. The Bloc have 7 fewer seats. The Conservatives have almost half as many as before, and the NDP has six less seats. The voter turnout was 63%...low for Canada. THe right-wing Alliance captured a strong protest vote in the West but captured ony two seats east of Manitoba. All parties retained party status by electing at least 12. The Bloc runs only in Quebec. The Liberals gained quite a few seats there. Cheers, Ken Hanly.
Economic revolutions/tortured election results
In support of Lou's argument, and again analogizing to Nicaragua, where U.S. imperialist mass murder and terror was also visited on the population, the Yugoslavian people's vote was , by this U.S. mass terror, under extreme duress. Probably for many Yugoslavs the main issue was not to get bombed again, as many Nicaraguans wanted to get rid of the U.S. sponsored terrorist contras. So, in both cases , many voted for U.S. candidates over annihilation, a true lesser of two evils ( U.S. candidates vs U.S. bombs/murderers). In other words, some voted not so much anti-Slobo or anti-Sandanista , but were crying Uncle ( Sam). This dynamic of coercion by mass murder is general to post-WWII U.S. imperial success against socialism and national liberations. Many peoples hailed the incredibly heroic sacrifice of the Viet Namese or Koreans for freedom , for example. But many peoples also think twice about making the same sacrifices. The Yugoslav election result is something like the Mafia candidate winning in a Teamster election. Clinton made the Yugoslavs an offer they couldn't refuse. CB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/06/00 10:44AM --- The revolt against Milosevic was the culmination of ten years of subversion, both political and economic, that included the following elements: 1. CIA and George Soros (same thing basically) sponsorship of NGO's, B92, etc. 2. Economic sanctions 3. Nato inspired wars or direct military intervention 4. Failure of the western left to show solidarity to a country under siege, because the powers organizing the siege were perceived as "one of us", like the German Greens, Blair's Labor Party or the Clinton White House. 5. Failure of the former Soviet Union to show even a modicum of solidarity, even on the "Slavic" basis put forward by the boneheads at stratfor.com. That's it folks. Those who embrace the downfall of Milosevic are embracing counter-revolution. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Economic revolutions/tortured election results
I think Charles is a bit fuzzy about whom the Mafia candidate in Serbia was. We will see about the new guys. But we _know_ about Slobo, a thug and murderer. --jks In a message dated Fri, 6 Oct 2000 3:10:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In support of Lou's argument, and again analogizing to Nicaragua, where U.S. imperialist mass murder and terror was also visited on the population, the Yugoslavian people's vote was , by this U.S. mass terror, under extreme duress. Probably for many Yugoslavs the main issue was not to get bombed again, as many Nicaraguans wanted to get rid of the U.S. sponsored terrorist contras. So, in both cases , many voted for U.S. candidates over annihilation, a true lesser of two evils ( U.S. candidates vs U.S. bombs/murderers). In other words, some voted not so much anti-Slobo or anti-Sandanista , but were crying Uncle ( Sam). This dynamic of coercion by mass murder is general to post-WWII U.S. imperial success against socialism and national liberations. Many peoples hailed the incredibly heroic sacrifice of the Viet Namese or Koreans for freedom , for example. But many peoples also think twice about making the same sacrifices. The Yugoslav election result is something like the Mafia candidate winning in a Teamster election. Clinton made the Yugoslavs an offer they couldn't refuse. CB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/06/00 10:44AM --- The revolt against Milosevic was the culmination of ten years of subversion, both political and economic, that included the following elements: 1. CIA and George Soros (same thing basically) sponsorship of NGO's, B92, etc. 2. Economic sanctions 3. Nato inspired wars or direct military intervention 4. Failure of the western left to show solidarity to a country under siege, because the powers organizing the siege were perceived as "one of us", like the German Greens, Blair's Labor Party or the Clinton White House. 5. Failure of the former Soviet Union to show even a modicum of solidarity, even on the "Slavic" basis put forward by the boneheads at stratfor.com. That's it folks. Those who embrace the downfall of Milosevic are embracing counter-revolution. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
[PEN-L:10789] Canadian Federal Election Results
I don't recall anyone posting the results of the Canadian Federal Election on June 2, so here they are. They show gains both for the right and the left, and a further regionalization of the country. The right-wing Reform party now the official opposition has no representation east of Manitoba and the next largest group the Bloc Quebecois runs only in Quebec and is separatist. Almost all seats in Ontario are Liberal. The NDP made a historical breakthrough in the Atlantic Provinces. Reform is dominant west of Manitoba. Party At dissolution Election of June 2 (295 seats) (301 seats) Liberals175 155 Bloc Quebecois 50 44 Reform Party50 60 NDP (New Democrats) 9 21 Progressive Conservative 2 20 Independent 6 1 Vacant 3
[PEN-L:7390] U.S. Presidential Election Results; How The Argument Is Won And the
U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS Unofficial results suggest a record low participation in voting for the U.S. presidential and congressional elections on Tuesday, especially among the working class and national minorities. Even commentators in the monopoly-media were dismayed at the continuing decline in voter participation, which strongly indicates that Americans are fed-up with the archaic political system. By boycotting the vote, a majority of the American polity were demonstrating their disgust with the present political system and their strong desire for democratic renewal. There are approximately 190 million eligible voters in the United States. Most media accounts put the percentage of those who voted at less than 49 percent of the total. The U.S. Committee for the Study of the American Electorate predicted that the final tally will be as low as 48.5 percent making it the lowest in U.S. history. Initial data from the individual states indicate that in 13 states voter participation dropped as much as 10 per cent from the 1992 presidential vote. The unofficial figures are: total number of the polity who boycotted the election = 97,850,000 (51.5 percent); total votes cast = 92,150,000 (48.5 percent); number of the polity who did not vote for U.S. imperialist chieftain Bill Clinton = 144,846,500 (76.2 percent); number of votes for Clinton = 45,153,500 (23.8 percent); votes for Republican Bob Dole = 38,703,000 (20.4 percent); votes for Texas billionaire Ross Perot of the Reform Party = 8,293,500 (4.4 percent). The 23.8 percent votes for Clinton is not far from what most ruling parties in Canada receive. Even though this represents an approval rating of less than one-quarter of the polity, it does not stop the ruling class from declaring that they have a "mandate" to do exactly as they please. This represents a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, using a political system and mechanisms that are firmly rooted in the nineteenth century. A modern political system where the working class and their allies hold political power would have a political process and mechanisms to guarantee that the people could participate in governance at all times. It would allow the people to select the candidates for political office and easily recall them if they were not responding to the wishes of the polity. In a truly democratic country where the working class and people hold power no person would be able to hold any office with less than 50 percent support of the polity. The present U.S. political system is a farce and a hollow shell that does not even do a good job of camouflaging the brutal dictatorship of the financial oligarchy. Even U.S. bourgeois commentators are disturbed, making comments such as "This tells us that we have a democracy in crisis in America;" and "We have progressively destroyed the impulse for civic engagement;" and open cynicism from Chief of Clinton's Staff, Leon Panetta, who said after the election, "Let us now deal with the issues" It is up to the huge U.S. proletariat to overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and lead the way for revolutionary changes to the U.S. political system. HOW THE ARGUMENT IS WON AND THE AGENDA SET In Germany and France the anti-social offensive is in full swing. To justify the attacks on the living standards of the working class, the arguments used in Europe and the world over are well-known: the "necessity to control the deficits and debts, live within our needs, suppress labor costs to be competitive in the global market and of course there is no alternative to cutbacks." The European twist is that certain "economic targets must be met in order to qualify to have the new 'euro' as their currency." The discussion never gets around to capitalism itself and its demand for new sources of capital and places to invest in order to satisfy its drive for maximum profit. The media attempts to convince the people that there "must" be a greater union of Europe, and that this greater economic union "must" have a unified currency, and in order to have a unified currency each member state "must" meet certain targets for deficit and debt reduction. Highly-paid economists play a central role in creating this fiction. For weeks the German media has been full of the following tale: "Germany will fail to make the grade for European monetary union on two counts, according to a forecast by the country's six leading economic institutes. The assessment sent politicians and central bankers into a spiral of panic The institutes believe that...the public deficit will reach 3.5 percent of gross domestic product, significantly higher than the 3 percent benchmark set by the Maastricht treaty for single currency candidates. Public debt will exceed the 60 percent of GDP prescribed by Maastricht. That would, in effect, derail the whole European
[PEN-L:5394] Re: Ontario election results
A friend in Kingston ON quotes the Toronto Star that the Conservatives' successful campaign was directed by a Mike Murphy, a protege of Jesse Helms. It seems Murphy also managed Ollie North's unsuccessful run at the US Senate. My friend predicts the new Ontario government will adopt a hard policy and tough rhetoric toward Quebec, and thereby boost separatist sentiment in this province. -- _ Dale Wharton [EMAIL PROTECTED] MONTREAL Te souviens-tu?
[PEN-L:5386] Ontario election results
Preliminary election results are in from Ontario, Canada's most populous province. It appears that the Tories, led by a US-inspired right winger named Harris, will form a majority government with 75 seats. This marks the end of the NDP government, led by Bob Rae, whose reign was marked by the infamous "social contract", which saw the government respond to deficit hysteria by legislating the opening of existing collective agreements. Sid Shniad
[PEN-L:4516] Re: nsw election results (OZ)
Bill, I see you are from NSW -- and in that the North American papers don't view Australia worthy of reporting on -- what happened in the recent NSW state elections? Elaine Bernard Harvard Trade Union Program [EMAIL PROTECTED] For those who don't know, New South Wales is the largest state in OZ and its capital is Sydney. the incumbent government was the "liberal-national party" coalition. super inapt name for both. the libs are a conservative, right-wing, privatising, free market lot (god, queen and country - despite the difficulty that indivs within the party had keeping to this - rather like the UK tories), and the national party is the rural rump - very conservative, anti-communist sort of lot who curiously go for massive government assistance to the rural sector - what else is new?). the labour party the chief opposition is meant to be the political arm of the union movement but has become infested with middle class types and has abandoned the platform of socialism. it still cares about the common person although it has let down the traditional supporter over a number of issues: it has allowed privatisations, deregulation of the banking sector, reductions in regulation in the labour market and more. the Labour party are in power federally and have been since 1983. anyway the NSW election: Currently a cliff hanger. Libs have been rejected and labour look like having a majority. Liberals = 29 National = 17 Coalition 46 Labour =47 Independents 2 (one anti-libs and one pro-national) Undecided4 Undecided Progress Report: Labour is ahead in 3 and probably will win them An independent is ahead in the other and will probably win. Likely outcome: Labour 50 Coalition 46 Independents 3 Likely policy impact: Forests will be saved from the rape of the woodchippers Public Hospitals will be improved and no further public hospital privatisations will occur (one was under the libs and it has turned into a nightmare for local communities with non-profit services being cut and increased prices for dispensing and extra-services) Public Schooling will be improved. Public Sector dignity will return. Bill's attitude: Would vote green/communist if there was a candidate but happy that the fucking libs are out. happy that once again in OZ we have shown electoral sense in getting rid of the 1980s new right push. ** William F. MitchellTelephone: +61-49-215027 .-_|\ Department of Economics +61-49-705133 / \ The University of NewcastleFax: +61-49-216919 \.--._/*-- Callaghan NSW 2308v Australia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html **
Re: Election results
Jim -- was that small government before or after capitalism had withered away? -- From: pen-l Subject: Re: Election results Date: Saturday, November 12, 1994 3:15PM At least according to Hal Draper's exhaustive survey of Marx's political ideas (kARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION, Monthly Review Press), old Karlos wanted a small govt with the governmental delegates subordinate to civil society. Sounds a bit like what USA voters want, though I doubt that they would go along with his idea that capitalism should be al abolished at this point. But maybe I read the polls wrong... in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
Re: Election results
On Sat, 12 Nov 1994, Jim Devine wrote: At least according to Hal Draper's exhaustive survey of Marx's political ideas (kARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION, Monthly Review Press), old Karlos wanted a small govt with the governmental delegates subordinate to civil society. Sounds a bit like what USA voters want, though I doubt that they would go along with his idea that capitalism should be al abolished at this point. But maybe I read the polls wrong... Maybe what I did not say in my message yesterday was that I don't believe some of the issues which concern the Christian Right are issues of central importance. It seems to me that the abortion and gay issues are of much more importance to them than one of equality - just my own reading of it. I am almost sure they would have less problem with government if it did not mean taking over what they consider to be against their principles - moral issues as opposed to economic issues. I am not sure whether this view is accurate since I am viewing the issue from outside and trying to read what literature I can - however, Jim, I am not sure what I said that so offended you. I am not here to offend anyone, just to call it as I see it and to learn.
Re: Election results
On Sat, 12 Nov 1994 03:04:40 -0800 DJ said: Peter Dornan says that the Christian Right is solid on a number of issues while the movements are disparate on many issues. Having read much of the literature put out by the Christian Right - and I am not quite sure who is represented here except most people suggest it is Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and possibly James Dobson - I know they feel they must organize to fight against the movements - and since they did not come to fruition until after the movements had formed, I wonder if that is not the case. Should the left solidify on issues, I would bet that the Christian Right will just organize more. What I am saying here is that in the absence of what the Christian Right sees as a threat, they would not have felt the need to organize, preferring to stay out of politics. Now that they are organizing, the movements will see the need to organize further (gays, abortionists, etc.) and that will just up the divisiveness in society. However, once the ball is rolling like it is, it is almost impossible to stop. Is this saying that for every action by the left, there will be an equal and opposite reaction from the right? I beg to differ. I would say that left and right are not complementary bands of "extremists" who disrupt Doug's desired social stability and cause the hated "divisiveness" (a.k.a. serious discussion about important issues rather than glorying in bipartisan unity and differing over politicians' personalities). To a large extent, the left and right are subsitutes: One reason why people turn to the right (and here I am not talking about the rich or the Salamander Gingriches of the world but about the working classes and the other victims of our system) is that the left doesn't offer a serious alternative that speaks to their needs and desires. Back in the 1960s and early 1970s, when the left was really strong it shifted US politics leftward. True, Nixon and his creeps unleashed state power to sabotage and repress the left. But his administration also brought about the Occupational Safety Health Act. Capitalism is currently living up to old Karlos' predictions of driving peoples' living standards down and work loads up (etc.) In the absence of a left that attacks the system in a meaningful way, people turn to the rif right. Rather than blame the system, they blame their neighbors, the scapegoats. Not only is the rise of the fundamentalist right a symptom of the failure of the left, it's also a symptom of the failure of the middle: the Clintonian "new Democrats" (technocratic conservatives). The 1994 election was a repudiation of them much more than of the weak and divided left. Some "left-wing" silliness may have helped (as when any fragmented movement goes overboard) but the Clintonians have a much a larger impact on politics than does the left (at least in 1994). Awhile back, if I remember correctly, some folks argued that Doug McReady should be kicked off the pen-l list. I argued that we should just stop replying to his messages and that he would go away. Ooops. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
Re: Election results
Jim Devine seemed to imply that Doug McCready had left the list. He has not. At the time, Doug's posts were written in such a way that he was a minority of one on the list Some did argue that he should leave the list. He did not. Instead, he would occassionallly post, b but he did not push his point of view in a way that was calculated to offend. If anybody could make a case that he were chased off the list, it would have been doug. Instead, he behavedadmirably and did all of us a favor. My computer is acting up, signing off -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Election results
I have been following the discussion on US election with great interest. I must say, I really don't understand the result well, but I'm an outsider. Let me say a few words in the form of a question. I think the American majority is conservative. Conservative in the sense the term is defined by the American politics. Majority of the people are against affermative action, equality in general, welfare state etc. Clinton had not won because of his progressive "social agenda" but because he promissed jobs during a bad recession. Though the "social agenda" is a site of struggle and the left may win this struggle-- but it will have to debate the affermative action policy more in public, an important aspect of "conservatism" is its rhetoric of "small government". I think the idea of "small government" resonates in American mind, given her history. My question is, whether the idea of "small government" is rejected outright by saying 'govt. is good' or one should discuss the merit of such an idea. The ideological question is about centralization and decentralization of power. Shouldn't progressive economists argue about this issue? Cheers, ajit sinha
Re: Election results
At least according to Hal Draper's exhaustive survey of Marx's political ideas (kARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION, Monthly Review Press), old Karlos wanted a small govt with the governmental delegates subordinate to civil society. Sounds a bit like what USA voters want, though I doubt that they would go along with his idea that capitalism should be al abolished at this point. But maybe I read the polls wrong... in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
Election results
Comrades, do not exaggerate your despair. The share of the Congressional popular vote was 52% Rep, 48% Dem. This hardly qualifies as the landslide of reaction it's been portrayed as - especially given depressed turnout on the left and energized turnout on the right. Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax)
Re: Election results
Whoa, Doug. The results DO mark a further shift right -- in the direction oflaw and order, anti-immigrANt sentiment, etc,. -- from the already reactionary positions being taken by the Dems. Sid Shniad Comrades, do not exaggerate your despair. The share of the Congressional popular vote was 52% Rep, 48% Dem. This hardly qualifies as the landslide of reaction it's been portrayed as - especially given depressed turnout on the left and energized turnout on the right. Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax)
Re: Election results
Trends in Oregon partially mirror what happened nationally, but there are some hopeful differences. While both houses of our Legislature did go Republican for the first time in 40 years, voters strongly rejected a hard right Republican candidate for governor. Results of the vast menu of ballot initiatives indicate that voters actually thought about what they were doing. The positives: -two harebrained tax schemes- popular vote on every tax and fee increase and a 2% flat tax- were rejected, the latter overwhelmingly; - Repeal of little Davis-Bacon was strongly rejected; - Constitutional amendment to cut public employee pensions is being narrowly defeated, though uncounted absentees still make us nervous. - An anti-gay rights initiative was defeated for the second consecutive time, though the margin is getting uncomfortably tighter (53-47 this time vs. 56-44 in 92) and the fanatics will not give up. If we conclude that voters are actually thinking and discriminating, the big negative is that they're intent on locking people up in perpetuity. All "anti-crime" measures passed big time, meaning hundreds of millions of dollars on prison construction for years to come and no new revenue in sight. That's dismal news for all other general fund programs. Others that folks might find interesting. Oregon appears to have passed the first physician-assisted suicide law in the US. It's ahead 52-48 pending absentees. And a major campaign finance reform initiative passed by a wide margin. Our Congressional delegation almost held fast 4-1 Democratic, but absentees sunk one of the Ds to add yet another far right R. Another D is still waiting for the final count but she's probably OK. How big a disaster was the election? Of all the positions I've seen on this net and elsewhere, what resonates with me is that without a movement we're sunk. That's not a deep analysis, but I see no way to push Clinton and the Ds left unless there's something real to apply pressure on that side. I'm less dubious than others about third party prospects these days, though we're talking a real long view. I was as depressed as anyone Tuesday night, but when I heard who some of the Democratic losses were, particularly Cooper of Tennessee who played an absolutely horrible role on health care, I had to wonder how big a difference it makes in the long run. I know that's somewhat glib, but right now it's hard to mourn for the Democrats as they currently exist. Apologies to subscribers outside the US for all this local rambling. Steve Hecker Steven Hecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Labor Education and Research Center 1289 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1289 telephone: 503-346-2788 fax: 503-346-2790
Re: Election results
I'd like to second Steve Hecker's call for more effective organizing. I don't have the numbers handy, but, from what I've seen, the percentage of the population that identifies with the hard, Christian right is about the same as the percentage that generally supports the "movements"--labor, women's, environmental, gay, etc. (This is an overlapping group; not everyone supports every movement.) The big difference is political organization. The hard right is powerfully organized at all levels and mobilizes volunteers, money, electoral turnout, you name it. The movements are fragmented and focused on their separate issues. They distrust politics and involve themselves inconsistently and ineffectively. When the issue is right (e.g. NAFTA) they can galvanize enormous support, but when the issue changes they go back to their separate worlds and, politically, we are back where we started from. Peter Dorman
